PowerSwitch

Posted: **07 Dec 2009, 20:31**

George Monbiot - The Guardian - 07/12/09

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working

Think environmentalists are stooges? You're the unwitting recruit of a hugely powerful oil lobby – I've got the proof.

Article continues ...

Posted: **07 Dec 2009, 21:13**

Another load of juicy evidence to throw at those who say there are no conspiracies.

Of course, no one likes to think they're being manipulated; that's what makes manipulating people so easy.

Posted: **07 Dec 2009, 22:06**

Ludwig wrote:Another load of juicy evidence to throw at those who say there are no conspiracies.

Of course, no one likes to think they're being manipulated; that's what makes manipulating people so easy.

I'm not sure the people who commented see it that way. There's either an organised campaign to rubbish all pro AGW postings on the web, or a lot of people in serious denial.

Posted: **07 Dec 2009, 22:25**

JohnB wrote:
Ludwig wrote:Another load of juicy evidence to throw at those who say there are no conspiracies.

Of course, no one likes to think they're being manipulated; that's what makes manipulating people so easy.
I'm not sure the people who commented see it that way.

Of course they don't: that's my point!

There's either an organised campaign to rubbish all pro AGW postings on the web, or a lot of people in serious denial.

Both, I think. Maybe it's my imagination, but I seem to have noticed an increasing number of articles and TV programmes about ice ages, natural climate change etc. recently :\

Posted: **10 Dec 2009, 18:16**

If you dispute the global warming thing then from your point of view it's the pro warming camp that are being duped.

Posted: **10 Dec 2009, 22:33**

fifthcolumn wrote:If you dispute the global warming thing then from your point of view it's the pro warming camp that are being duped.

Yes, but given that one side or the other must be lying, one looks at the sources and their likely motivations and makes a judgment as to which it's likely to be. I'm always prepared to change my mind, but as things stand, the notion of a pro-AGW conspiracy makes no sense to me. On the other hand, it probably makes perfect sense to anyone whose explanation for everything they don't like is "It's just a way of trying to get more money out of the taxpayer". But such people are, frankly, idiots.

Posted: **11 Dec 2009, 09:35**

Ludwig wrote:I'm always prepared to change my mind, but as things stand, the notion of a pro-AGW conspiracy makes no sense to me. On the other hand, it probably makes perfect sense to anyone whose explanation for everything they don't like is "It's just a way of trying to get more money out of the taxpayer". But such people are, frankly, idiots.

Agreed. I wonder how the people who squeal loudest about how highly taxed we are would feel about living in some of the Scandinavian nations, such as Denmark:

Wikipedia wrote:According to newly revised statistics, Denmark has had the world's highest tax level in 2005 and 2006, at 50.7% and 49.1% respectively.

Wikipedia: Economy of Denmark

Posted: **11 Dec 2009, 17:37**

caspian wrote: Agreed. I wonder how the people who squeal loudest about how highly taxed we are would feel about living in some of the Scandinavian nations, such as Denmark:

Not a good comparison.
The Scandinavians have BRILLIANT infrastructure and are very well placed to avoid the worst of peak oil.

Raising taxes in Britain will not make things any better for the average person, it will simply funnel MORE money into the pockets of the usual suspects.

Posted: **11 Dec 2009, 19:57**

The Scandinavians have BRILLIANT infrastructure because they have had high taxation for a very long time. We lost that plot a long time ago.

Posted: **11 Dec 2009, 20:01**

Indeed, the UK has (may soon change) the lowest tax burden in Europe except Ireland and the FSU countries. It should be no surprise the Scandinavians have better public services, they have the highest tax burden.

Posted: **11 Dec 2009, 23:56**

biffvernon wrote:The Scandinavians have BRILLIANT infrastructure because they have had high taxation for a very long time. We lost that plot a long time ago.

Call me cynical biff, but in the UK if you get high taxation it won't be to build a whizz bang electric light rail grid.

It will be to keep the bankers in the bonuses that they think they deserve.

Posted: **12 Dec 2009, 17:15**

.. and to bribe the chavs to keep sitting at home watching daytime TV, whilst smoking and drinking ...

Posted: **12 Dec 2009, 18:43**

Vortex wrote:.. and to bribe the chavs to keep sitting at home watching daytime TV, whilst smoking and drinking ...

Oh for Heaven's sake Vortex. Without denying that there are and always have been benefit scroungers, the vast majority of people claiming benefits are doing so in good faith and would much rather have a job.

If it weren't for my redundancy payout and my savings, I'd have been living on £60 a week for the past 8 months. Out of that I'd have had to pay for food, bills, about £150 a month towards my mortgage (the bit not covered by my insurance), transport... (I'd have had to sell my car). And I don't even have a family to support.

What would you do if you found yourself workless and penniless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would probably be glad of the little support that the state offered you. Or do you take the attitude "It could never happen to me"? Don't be so sure. I imagine many of the Argentinian middle classes thought the same thing, in the days before they had to sell cardboard boxes to survive their economic crisis.

Anyhow, I think the issue of state benefits is largely a distraction. If the economy collapses there are going to be no benefits to speak of, because the Government won't be able to afford them (not to mention hyperinflation).

Posted: **13 Dec 2009, 18:23**

Without denying that there are and always have been benefit scroungers, the vast majority of people claiming benefits are doing so in good faith and would much rather have a job.

Technically true no doubt. However the minority is likely to be very sizeable in numerical terms.

See also:

Six out of ten sickness benefits claimants could go back to work, official research found yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ister.html

Posted: **13 Dec 2009, 18:46**

Vortex wrote:See also:

Six out of ten sickness benefits claimants could go back to work, official research found yesterday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ister.html

Ah. Now I used to agree with all this, until I happened to stumble upon how industry treats those of us who, though technically not disabled, have not-always-robust health. After my 12th day off with migraine in 1 year I was called in, at no notice, to the boss's office and grilled, for a whole hour, about what I'm going to do to stop this happening again. The "meeting" didn't finish until I agreed to sign a form saying I understood why they called the meeting (which frankly I didn't). This has given me some understanding about how it is that people with no visible scars have still been known to sign false confessions in dingy cop-shops.

My point is that industry, for its own perfectly good reasons, hates hiring people whose health is "marginal". Said people therefore find themselves unemployable, though still technically able to do the work. The next logical step (and I must admit even I've been tempted), unless you have enough experience to go self-employed, is to sign up on incapacity.